Interesting letter from SoCal League, re referee issues

Grace T. said:
As with corners it just resulted in shoving near the goal which is interesting for a corner but not if it’s going on all game (you’ve also just added a second ref necessary to police it). Iirc isn’t that also the origin of the line of scrimmage in football?
Click to expand...
Maybe but this would be where refs call fouls (just like in basketball).

Once a foul is called the play is dead and the other team gets to start working the ball up the field.

Keep in mind that both teams can park a forward if there was no offsides. But if you do this you're playing man down until the ball is in the other teams side. At the highest levels could you allow this? I dont know.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Maybe but this would be where refs call fouls (just like in basketball).

Once a foul is called the play is dead and the other team gets to start working the ball up the field.

Keep in mind that both teams can park a forward if there was no offsides. But if you do this you're playing man down until the ball is in the other teams side. At the highest levels could you allow this? I dont know.
Click to expand...
Yes but now you are back to needing a ref crew (at least 2) which is where this started plus you are now rewriting the foul laws (because otherwise the ball goes to the gk at the 6). Also the gk rules probably need to be rewritten because every time they’ll punt it into the box (which right now is limited by the offside rule).
 
Grace T. said:
Yes but now you are back to needing a ref crew (at least 2) which is where this started plus you are now rewriting the foul laws (because otherwise the ball goes to the gk at the 6). Also the gk rules probably need to be rewritten because every time they’ll punt it into the box (which right now is limited by the offside rule).
Click to expand...
2 refs is one less than 3

I have to admit I've never really thought about getting rid of offsides from a keepers perspective. There might be some additional rule changes needed to accommodate.

But overall the concept of getting rid of offsides has its merits. More action, higher scores, less refs, less rules that make refs the bad guy.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
2 refs is one less than 3

I have to admit I've never really thought about getting rid of offsides from a keepers perspective. There might be some additional rule changes needed to accommodate.

But overall the concept of getting rid of offsides has its merits. More action, higher scores, less refs, less rules that make refs the bad guy.
Click to expand...
We'll have to rethink the DFKs too because otherwise they'll also just park someone to take out the GK...OK, I've got it!.... hear me out

What if we create a line (can be used for kick offs too) level with the ball where the other team has to line up before a DFK....we can call it a line of kickoff or something. In order to encourage the GK to not hang out at the net all game, we'll remove the PK area and allow them to use their hands anywhere on the field...BUT they can't punt the ball...only throw it!...but since this is a powerful move we'll encourage the other teams to foul the GK...that will be called I dunno something like maybe a "sack"....of course the GK will need some big powerful guys to block for him...and we'll need to require the GK to move the ball up a minimum of 10 yards up the line to keep the game moving or that's a foul!!!...and since two whistles are confusing maybe we move the flags from off the field onto the field??? Might work!

;) :p

www.eater.com

Life Cereal on Mad Men: The Cure for the Common Breakfast

A national site covering food and dining culture, with 23 city sites tracking local dining scenes across hundreds of maps.
www.eater.com www.eater.com
 
This is the problem with soccer.

For most of the issues people like to complain about there are solutions. Unfortunately when a solution is provided theres always a vocal group that fears change.

It's like the recent BY to SY change. Why is it happening? To make it so players in the same grade can play on the same team. So SY means "School Year" right? No, it means "Seasonal Year". But I thought the change was being implemented to align with players grade in school. Why wouldn't you call it School Year? Oh, because different schools start at different dates so we dont want groupings to be done by grade. But I thought thats why things were changing from BY? Yes, it's one of the reasons. Another big reason is so theres no more trapped players. OK, so under Seasonal Year there wont be trapped players. No there will still be trapped players but instead of being trapped on an older team they'll be trapped on a younger team.

Reguarding offsides a more middle of the road way to change the rule is to only allow offsides in the box or do like hockey does and have a blue line. This way center field wouldn't have offsides. Which would result in more goals but wouldn't be so crazy for the goalies. The downside to this approach is you still need 3 refs per game.
 
Or how about this one.

Leagues like SOCAL say that refs need to be paid in cash. We all know that they're doing this because illegal immigrants will work the job because they dont have other options. But, wink wink SOCAL doesn't officially know this and just happens to have rule requiring refs be paid in cash.

How about instead of exploiting people offer more money for games? And maybe if you changed the rules so refs weren't always the bad guys getting yelled at more people would want to be a ref.
 
Status quo <> good
Change <> bad

But change for change's sake <> necessarily good either.

There are many foreseen and probably a few unforeseen consequences to just about any rule change we can dream up to improve the game. Collectively, it's how the rules continue to morph towards some level of agreement that the governing bodies believe is "good for the sport". There's never going to be full agreement, or even necessarily consensus, about sporting changes. Those who are pushing for their particular agenda - even with the best of intentions - are always going to be disappointed about how slow change that they're looking for tends to happen. In most things it's almost always slow and incremental.

By no means is the offside rule in soccer today perfect in meeting all of its objectives, and I agree with you, there are probably a number of different things that can be considered to adjust it for either higher goal scoring, perceived fairness, perhaps less referees, etc.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
This is the problem with soccer.

For most of the issues people like to complain about there are solutions. Unfortunately when a solution is provided theres always a vocal group that fears change.

It's like the recent BY to SY change. Why is it happening? To make it so players in the same grade can play on the same team. So SY means "School Year" right? No, it means "Seasonal Year". But I thought the change was being implemented to align with players grade in school. Why wouldn't you call it School Year? Oh, because different schools start at different dates so we dont want groupings to be done by grade. But I thought thats why things were changing from BY? Yes, it's one of the reasons. Another big reason is so theres no more trapped players. OK, so under Seasonal Year there wont be trapped players. No there will still be trapped players but instead of being trapped on an older team they'll be trapped on a younger team.

Reguarding offsides a more middle of the road way to change the rule is to only allow offsides in the box or do like hockey does and have a blue line. This way center field wouldn't have offsides. Which would result in more goals but wouldn't be so crazy for the goalies. The downside to this approach is you still need 3 refs per game.
Click to expand...
That’s almost like the u10 build out line.
Carlsbad7 said:
Or how about this one.

Leagues like SOCAL say that refs need to be paid in cash. We all know that they're doing this because illegal immigrants will work the job because they dont have other options. But, wink wink SOCAL doesn't officially know this and just happens to have rule requiring refs be paid in cash.

How about instead of exploiting people offer more money for games? And maybe if you changed the rules so refs weren't always the bad guys getting yelled at more people would want to be a ref.
Click to expand...
IF (a big if….SoCal is supposed to be generating 1099s over the threshold but again I don’t know if they are or aren’t) SoCal is doing this, it would also be away around the $20 minimum wage. Refs generally aren’t subject to the minimum wage as ics but if you can’t get the air conditioned McDonald’s job, and if you aren’t paying taxes on your cash, can see why the economic incentives for them to do it. Though IF it’s happening, it does further point to a growing divide between top letter leagues and everyone else.
 
Grace T. said:
As with corners it just resulted in shoving near the goal which is interesting for a corner but not if it’s going on all game (you’ve also just added a second ref necessary to police it). Iirc isn’t that also the origin of the line of scrimmage in football?
Click to expand...
I hate that we allow strikers to full arm push, and defenders to full arm wrap, on corners. To me, that's far more objectionable than offside rules.
 
Slobodan said:
I hate that we allow strikers to full arm push, and defenders to full arm wrap, on corners. To me, that's far more objectionable than offside rules.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you but what are the options? If you call forwards more for pushing off it just slows down play and gives fans another reason hate refs. If you let it go theres more goals scored. As long as the rules are applied consistently most people are ok with the results.

Offsides is different because if you got rid of it the cost to provide games would go down from 3 refs to 1 or maybe 2. On top of that its a really hard rule to consistently apply and it makes refs the bad guy if they get it wrong. Or even worse get it right but spectators dont have the same viewpoint. I get that offsides is a foundational in soccer and any kind of change would cause riots. But eventually people need to review and consider it.

If you think I'm crazy FIFA is looking to make changes to the offsides rule.
www.espn.com

Wenger eyes 'daylight' offside law 'in one year'

Arsene Wenger, FIFA's chief of global football development, has suggested changes to the offside law could arrive in a year.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
Carlsbad7 said:
I tend to agree with you but what are the options? If you call forwards more for pushing off it just slows down play and gives fans another reason hate refs. If you let it go theres more goals scored. As long as the rules are applied consistently most people are ok with the results.

Offsides is different because if you got rid of it the cost to provide games would go down from 3 refs to 1 or maybe 2. On top of that its a really hard rule to consistently apply and it makes refs the bad guy if they get it wrong. Or even worse get it right but spectators dont have the same viewpoint. I get that offsides is a foundational in soccer and any kind of change would cause riots. But eventually people need to review and consider it.

If you think I'm crazy FIFA is looking to make changes to the offsides rule.
www.espn.com

Wenger eyes 'daylight' offside law 'in one year'

Arsene Wenger, FIFA's chief of global football development, has suggested changes to the offside law could arrive in a year.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...
Well, it's not allowed anywhere else on the field. Why on a dead ball situation? It's like anything else... if fans spent a week not going to baseball games, ticket prices and salaries go down. You toss out a few yellows, where a suspension is at stake, they'll stop doing it. I don't remember a plethora of goals being scored before they allowed that. It hasn't been happening, this egregiously, for that long... right? If it was, I wasn't paying attention. Seems like it's gotten much worse the last 2-3 years.

I think dumping the offside rule pushes us further towards boot ball most of us despise and have beaten into the ground here. I'm a firm believer that playing "direct" adds to the game if it's used sparingly, but the only thing harder than watching slow play is watching that kind of play.
 
Slobodan said:
I think dumping the offside rule pushes us further towards boot ball most of us despise and have beaten into the ground here. I'm a firm believer that playing "direct" adds to the game if it's used sparingly, but the only thing harder than watching slow play is watching that kind of play.
Click to expand...
I've thought about what would happen if soccer got rid of offsides. Initially like everyone else I assumed players would just boot it up to forwards who were camping around the goal. But defenders would respond by maning up to these players resulting in the midfield being left open. If the midfield is left open why boot it up for a 50/50 when you can just walk it up the field and setup on offense switching back and forth looking for opportunities.

The weird thing is the more you think about it the more it feels like nothing would change at all. This is because while forwards get an initial advantage defenders would quickly develop strategies to address.
 
Slobodan said:
Well, it's not allowed anywhere else on the field. Why on a dead ball situation? It's like anything else... if fans spent a week not going to baseball games, ticket prices and salaries go down. You toss out a few yellows, where a suspension is at stake, they'll stop doing it. I don't remember a plethora of goals being scored before they allowed that. It hasn't been happening, this egregiously, for that long... right? If it was, I wasn't paying attention. Seems like it's gotten much worse the last 2-3 years.

I think dumping the offside rule pushes us further towards boot ball most of us despise and have beaten into the ground here. I'm a firm believer that playing "direct" adds to the game if it's used sparingly, but the only thing harder than watching slow play is watching that kind of play.
Click to expand...
The reason why is because there's a hole in the rules. Refs can't call fouls if the ball isn't in play (they can misconduct which is issue cards, but as we've discussed elsewhere cards are disfavored in both the youth and pro game and has to rise to a certain level of foul). Ball is not in play until the corner kick is taken. Even if the ref issues a card for conduct prior to the kick taken, the restart is still a corner kick so possession is not lost. The reluctance to card + you don't lose possession means its rational for player's to take risks on some rough play.

Carlsbad7 said:
I've thought about what would happen if soccer got rid of offsides. Initially like everyone else I assumed players would just boot it up to forwards who were camping around the goal. But defenders would respond by maning up to these players resulting in the midfield being left open. If the midfield is left open why boot it up for a 50/50 when you can just walk it up the field and setup on offense switching back and forth looking for opportunities.

The weird thing is the more you think about it the more it feels like nothing would change at all. This is because while forwards get an initial advantage defenders would quickly develop strategies to address.
Click to expand...

Again chesterton's fence. We know what happens because we've seen it in youth games which don't operate with offsides and in the prior games. It makes rational sense to station a player in front of the goal because it effectively removes the GK from play (both on offense and defense). So it requires a radical rework of how the referee system works, how DFKs are handled, and in what distribution the GK is allowed (or you'll just see punting from one side of the field to the other because it will have the same mechanics as the corner slobi complains about). I personally like the new proposed change but it won't have any impact on the youth game operating without VAR since the benefit of the doubt is already given to the striker.
 
Grace T. said:
The reason why is because there's a hole in the rules. Refs can't call fouls if the ball isn't in play (they can misconduct which is issue cards, but as we've discussed elsewhere cards are disfavored in both the youth and pro game and has to rise to a certain level of foul). Ball is not in play until the corner kick is taken. Even if the ref issues a card for conduct prior to the kick taken, the restart is still a corner kick so possession is not lost. The reluctance to card + you don't lose possession means its rational for player's to take risks on some rough play.



Again chesterton's fence. We know what happens because we've seen it in youth games which don't operate with offsides and in the prior games. It makes rational sense to station a player in front of the goal because it effectively removes the GK from play (both on offense and defense). So it requires a radical rework of how the referee system works, how DFKs are handled, and in what distribution the GK is allowed (or you'll just see punting from one side of the field to the other because it will have the same mechanics as the corner slobi complains about). I personally like the new proposed change but it won't have any impact on the youth game operating without VAR since the benefit of the doubt is already given to the striker.
Click to expand...
They absolutely can call a foul on a dead ball situation and do it every match. You're right in that it's a misconduct foul but it's a simple fix. Tell players you're going to call it and then follow through. It won't be a rational risk for the coach when a guy grabs a card 20 minutes in.

When you pull a jersey, it's a foul and often times a card. You don't allow holding in football, basketball, hockey, etc. There's no way you can justify allowing it on a corner. I hate that as much as, "well, it's a playoff game so we let more go." Why? Call it. Foul last week? Foul today. Don't change the rules now because that changes the game. I don't want to see Harry Kane get tackled to the ground on every corner.
 
Slobodan said:
They absolutely can call a foul on a dead ball situation and do it every match. You're right in that it's a misconduct foul but it's a simple fix. Tell players you're going to call it and then follow through. It won't be a rational risk for the coach when a guy grabs a card 20 minutes in.

When you pull a jersey, it's a foul and often times a card. You don't allow holding in football, basketball, hockey, etc. There's no way you can justify allowing it on a corner. I hate that as much as, "well, it's a playoff game so we let more go." Why? Call it. Foul last week? Foul today. Don't change the rules now because that changes the game. I don't want to see Harry Kane get tackled to the ground on every corner.
Click to expand...
Don't know what game you are watching but refs out there certainly aren't carding for grabbing of a jersey unless it results in something like DOGSO or is serious (and then they'll usually yellow it). Reason why is, as you know, the leagues have serious penalties for carding players and the thought is why punish a kid for making a mistake by making them sit (and in the pro game, it's "trifling" and "interferes with the flow of the game"). So the most you typically get (if that) is a whistle (which isn't an option on corners for the reasons I previously stated). I'm just saying it's an "issue your damn cards" problem instead of a "they aren't calling corners" problem, which means it's a larger systemic problem than just corners.

p.s. my personal fix to this is the game does need an red/purple or black distinction. Suspensions reserved for serious misconduct like violence, slurs, or serious dissent; red 1 game ejections for things like dogso, double yellow, intentional handballs. True story. My kid sweeps and once misjudged the the PA line using his hands a few inches outside of it to block a shot he wasn't expecting...that's DOGSO should a been a red....ref was merciful since they were losing 7 to 1 anyways and gave him a yellow rather than a red + 2 game suspension.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top